Photo credit of :http://www.flickr.com/photos/truth_about_it/4701905227/sizes/m/
It was about two years ago when I first saw Jeremy Lin in the newspaper. It was an article that talked about how well he had done in high school and college,and how he could also play on the school's basketball team. At that time,I didn't pay that much attention to him,and especially how he viewed his failure to make it into the NBA. But two years later, he made it into professional basketball and became famous with lots of paparazzi around him. Through it all, I respected that he still had the same personality,and goals.
About eight months ago, I came across two articles talking about the advantages and disadvantages of the new trend on college campuses--"one-and-done" basketball players. These players were defined as "guys that attend college on a basketball scholarship for one year,and then make a jump to the NBA." The author pointed out that all of the starters on the University of Kentucky's 2012 National Championship basketball team were leaving school to try out for the NBA.
Information credit of: http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/do-nba-players-need-to-spend-more-time-in-school
Given this, was this going to be the new trend in professional sports? They started by discussing whether this was good or bad for college sports, professional teams, and more important the athletes. This got me thinking and led me to the question: " Whether or not one should finish college before one joins the NBA?" And just as important, " If they leave college to play basketball and want to return,should they be allowed to return and play basketball?"
According to HELIUM, "...In today's society,sports itself of course is something that's highly valued..."(Helium) But why not value one's education? From their view of point,NBA potentials should be valuing and paying as much attention to their education as what they're going to do on the basketball court for the next few years. He called for potential players to stay in school,graduate,and then try out for the NBA,and/or international teams.
This author stressed the point that college was to prepare students for a career in whatever area they want to specialize in. But in the case of athletes, their profession is playing sports. If kids can get into the NBA or foreign leagues,why should they continue to play in college for no pay? In some cases, potential players would lose millions of dollars by staying in school. Thus, he was all for allowing and encouraging players to step out and try to play on the professional level. From his view of point,players could always return to finish their college education and pay for it themselves.
The similarities between these two articles is that both talked about the NBA as being a highly selective league,and both acknowledged that the probability of getting drafted into NBA was extremely low. They both understood that if they play it is only for few years. They were also concerned about the kids that don't make it. In fact, one can easily picture them without a job; without their close friends;and without coaches and teachers supporting them by their side. In any case, it's definitely going to be tough for them.
Given this, many coaches,critics and professionals called for the right of players to "return back to the college basketball court," especially after they failed their tryout or been released. This would allow young players to have a taste of process and understand where they're at,and what they need to work on in order to move on to the next level. For those who were not selected by the NBA, Continental League or foreign teams,they could still come back to school;work even harder at their game;and prepare for a new job.
The differences between these two articles is that one said that the kids who declared for NBA but failed should not be allowed to continue playing basketball because it was unfair to the other players and students. For others. they felt the players could return;receive their scholarship,and play basketball. For the first groups, "to learn is not just about what's occurs in the classroom,but also about life. This is true for anybody. The longer you stay in school the more you learn. You get as much out of your education as you put into it."(Ebony) For these reasons, they felt that those students who wanted to make the NBA should not be allowed to return to college hoops and receive their scholarship or stipend..
I agree with the authors who said "yes" to education! First,the chance to get a free education is just as important as having a chance to try out for the draft. Why not get an education when it is free,and when one is young? Why not spend the best years of one's life in school,and enjoy it like Jeremy Lin? Second,I am an NBA purist who feels that the four-year college players are much more refined as ambassadors for the team. They have more basketball and social skills.Owners have found out that most high school and one-year college players need to be tutored,and they sit on the bench for a long time before playing well. Third, the cost of a player's development is a team responsibility,and not covered by a college program. Fourth,it makes good sense to let the colleges develop players for it helps the college and their communities to build a strong relationship. It is money in the bank for college, the college community,and the team. Fifth,I think players who couldn't make it,etc. should be allowed to return to college and play basketball. College sports is actually a "big" business! Also,many college players on the Division I level are playing on a professional level,so why not let them return to finish their education. Everyone would benefit-the teams,the college and the community. Finally,I'm very proud of Jeremy Lin because he is such a good role model. He was driven to play NBA basketball,but he also wanted to be a top student and prepare for future goals and jobs. I must admit, I am proud to be Taiwanese.
No comments:
Post a Comment